RAJIV SAREEN vs M/S DIVYANSHU ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 03.11.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 13.11.2025 + RFA(OS) 7/2022, CM APPL. 7480/2023, CM APPL. 7481/2023, CM APPL. 7482/2023, CM APPL. 7483/2023, CM APPL. 57284/2023 and CM APPL. 15708/2025 RAJIV SAREEN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Manish Makhija and Ms. Simran Makhija, Advs. versus M/S DIVYANSHU ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Mr. O. P. Pahuja, Adv. for PNB. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant [Plaintiff before the learned Single Judge] assails the correctness of judgment dated 02.02.2022 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Judgment‟] passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 83/2021, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed I.A. No. 14422/2021 filed by Respondent No.3 [Defendant No.3 before the learned Single Judge] under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟] and, in exercise of the powers conferred thereunder, rejected the plaint. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS) 7/2022 Page 1 of 12 Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:13.11.2025 12:07:05 2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Appeal is whether a civil suit seeking cancellation of a registered Sale Deed is maintainable before a Civil Court, despite the express bar to the jurisdiction of Civil Courts created under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as „SARFAESI Act‟]. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present Appeal, the relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed. 4. The Appellant and his f